A limited constitutional government calls for a rules-based, freemarket monetary system, not the topsy-turvy fiat dollar that now exists under central banking. This issue of the Cato Journal examines the case for alternatives to central banking and the reforms needed to move toward free-market money.

The more widespread use of body cameras will make it easier for the American public to better understand how police officers do their jobs and under what circumstances they feel that it is necessary to resort to deadly force.

Americans are finally enjoying an improving economy after years of recession and slow growth. The unemployment rate is dropping, the economy is expanding, and public confidence is rising. Surely our economic crisis is behind us. Or is it? In Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis, Cato scholar Michael D. Tanner examines the growing national debt and its dire implications for our future and explains why a looming financial meltdown may be far worse than anyone expects.

The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is not just a framework for utopia,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.

Search form

Tag: futenma

Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has resigned, just eight months after leading his party to a landslide victory. The Democratic Party of Japan meets Friday to replace him. The finance minister, Naoto Kan, is the favorite, though nothing is certain. The party is an amalgam of factions and the party secretary general, Ichiro Ozawa, who did the most to bring the DPJ to power, also is stepping down.

Prime Minister Hatoyama was hit by a campaign scandal—a regular of Japanese politics. But the most important cause of his resignation was his botched handling of American bases on the island of Okinawa.

In early 1945 Okinawa became the first part of the Japanese homeland to fall as the U.S. closed in on imperial Japan. Washington held onto the island after the war and loaded it with military installations. Only in 1972 was Okinawa returned to Japanese sovereignty. Despite some reduction in U.S. forces, American military facilities still account for roughly one-fifth of the island’s territory.

Okinawans long ago tired, understandably, of the burden and have been pressing for the removal of at least some bases. The DPJ campaigned to create a more equal alliance with America and promised to revisit plans by the previous government to relocate America’s Futenma facility elsewhere on the island.

However, under strong U.S. pressure Hatoyama reversed course. He said the rising tensions on the Korean peninsula reminded him about the value of America’s military presence.

Japan’s military dependency is precisely the problem. American taxpayers have paid to defend Japan for 65 years. Doing so made sense in the aftermath of World War II, when Japan was recovering from war and Tokyo’s neighbors feared a revived Japanese military. But long ago it became ridiculous for Americans to defend the world’s second-ranking power and its region.

Of course, having turned its defense over to Washington, Tokyo could do no more than beg the U.S. to move its base. After all, if Americans are going to do Japan’s dirty defense work, Americans are entitled to have convenient base access. Irrespective of what the Okinawans desire.

Unfortunately, Hatoyama’s resignation isn’t likely to change anything. The new prime minister won’t be much different from the old one. Or the ones before him.

If change is to come to the U.S.-Japan security relationship, it will have to come from America. And it should start with professed fiscal conservatives asking why the U.S. taxpayers, on the hook for a $1.6 trillion deficit this year alone, must forever subsidize the nation with the world’s second-largest economy?

Cliches about living in a dangerous world and defending freedom are no answer. America is made not only poorer but less secure when it discourages its friends from defending themselves and when it accepts their geopolitical conflicts as its own. To coin a phrase, it is time for a change.

And not just with Japan. There’s also South Korea. And especially the Europeans. It’s not clear who they have to be defended from, but whoever their potential adversary or adversaries may be, the Europeans should defend themselves. The Obama administration is impoverishing Americans to support a growing welfare state at home. Americans shouldn’t have to help pay for the Europeans’ even bigger welfare state at the same time.

The U.S. should maintain a strong defense. Of America.

Washington should stop subsidizing the defense of prosperous and populous allies. When the Constitution speaks of “the common defense,” the Founders meant of Americans, not of the rest of the world. A good place to start ending foreign military welfare would be Japan.

after imploring [new Japanese PM Yukio] Hatoyama to continue Japan’s minuscule contribution to the war in Afghanistan and not to reconsider the deal to realign U.S. forces in Japan, Gates was asked whether the U.S. military role in Japan might be scaled back. Offering the obligatory reference to the countries’ “shared interest” in regional security, Gates admitted that “the primary purpose of our alliance from a military standpoint is to provide for the security of Japan … It allows Japan to have a defense budget … of roughly 1 percent of GDP.”

This is an excellent reason why the Japanese should support the alliance, but it raises the question of why U.S. taxpayers should want to pick up the tab for Japan’s security.

The idea of a Japanese government breaking Japanese law in order to allow American military vessels to carry nuclear weapons in Japan is wildly unpopular among Japanese. In large part, this is a pretty transparent move by the DPJ to stick it to the now out of power Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) by tying them to illegal and secretive practices that huge majorities of the Japanese public oppose.

But the broader point is that for those of us who have been advocating a larger role in Asia for Japan and a smaller one for the United States, the increasingly independent nature of the new DPJ government ought to be seen as a feature, not a bug. If the Japanese are really feeling their oats and aren’t too excited at continuing the LDP’s lockstep alliance with the United States, more power to them. If they want fewer US troops in Japan, terrific. We’re militarily overextended as it is and have serious economic problems to deal with. The Bush administration took some baby steps in this direction. The Obama administration should keep the ball rolling.

American officials ought to be quietly thinking about how to use the developments in Japan to start handing off responsibility for defending Japan to the Japanese government.